The tripartite model of perfectionism: Evidence from research in sport and dance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The previous chapter focused on perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns as the two overarching dimensions of perfectionism and described the relationships that those dimensions show when considered independently. One drawback to this approach is that people endorse levels across the two dimensions simultaneously (Gotwals, 2011). For instance, athletes and dancers are often encouraged to strive for high standards of performance (i.e., to endorse high perfectionistic strivings), but to also recognize that it is irrational to demand the achievement of those standards (i.e., to endorse low perfectionistic concerns; Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams, 2006). The tripartite model of perfectionism (Parker, 1997; Rice & Ashby, 2007; Stoeber & Otto, 2006) contends that different profiles across perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns reflect distinct perfectionistic orientations that are differentially associated with performance, health, and well-being. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the degree to which the model’s contentions have been reproduced in research on perfectionism in sport and dance.1 There are four primary sections to the chapter. The first presents the foundations of the tripartite model. The second evaluates the degree to which research findings from sport and dance reproduce the tripartite model’s contentions and, as a result, support or challenge the model. The third section discusses methodological issues that, based on the previous review, may influence the degree to which research findings from sport and dance support or challenge the tripartite model. The final section presents directions that future research can take to advance understanding of the degree to which the tripartite model accurately captures perfectionism among athletes, dancers, and exercisers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".